Holding onto my hat

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The day was 31 October 2015 and I was in the famous university town of
Cambridge in the United Kingdom.

I was there to attend a conference with the enticing title "The
Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the Future of Singapore". The Conference featured an impressive line-up
of speakers comprising distinguished Singaporean and non-Singaporeans with
in-depth knowledge of Singaporean history and politics.

Oxford historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin and Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large
Mr Bilahari Kausikan were among the Singaporean speakers I was eager to hear.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin

Dr Thum’s topic was "Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy". In his presentation, Dr Thum reviewed the historical
context of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's rise to prominence and the political ascendance of
the People's Action Party (PAP) in the pioneer years of Singapore.

In the course of his comprehensive historical analysis, Dr Thum made
the point that the era which saw the independence of Singapore was marked by
robust political competition. Democracy, debate and dissent characterised the
early phase of Singapore's political history.
However, the subsequent period was marked by intolerance for dissent,
which has become the one enduring legacy of Mr Lee.

It was interesting to hear Dr Thum because his perspective of Mr Lee's
role in Singapore's history dissented from the narrative circulated by official
sources in Singapore.

Mr Bilahari Kausikan

Mr Bilahari's topic was "Lee Kuan Yew's cast of mind and its
lasting influence". As I leaned
forward to listen, I had not bargained to be in for some unpleasant surprises.

To my amazement, Mr Bilahari departed from his prepared transcript at
least twice to take two digs at Dr Thum - to make it clear to the audience that
he was not in agreement with Dr Thum’s point of view.

On Dr Thum’s view that the PAP government was intolerant of dissent, Mr
Bilahari argued that since Dr Thum was able to express his dissenting views about
Mr Lee’s political role, then Dr Thum can’t be right to complain that the PAP
government was intolerant of dissent.

I was taken aback. I failed to see the logic of Mr Bilahari's
reasoning. Dr Thum had expressed his
dissenting views to an international audience at an overseas conference, not in
Singapore. Has Dr Thum been free to
express his dissenting views in Singapore without adverse repercussions?

Mr Bilahari's second swipe at Dr Thum was more caustic. He called Dr
Thum "a young academic trying to make a name for himself" - implying
that Dr Thum was propagating an alternative version of Singapore’s history so
as to draw attention to himself.

Some in the audience booed Dr Bilahari on hearing his ungracious words
against Dr Thum.

I was shocked - and ashamed - that a high ranking diplomat would deem
fit to speak against a fellow Singaporean speaker at an overseas conference in
front of an international audience.

By trying to attack Dr Thum's credibility, Mr Bilahari only succeeded
in proving Dr Thum right about the PAP Government's intolerance for dissenting
views.

But there was one more unhappy surprise in store for me.

"Some" opposition politicians

As Mr Bilahari drew his speech to a close, he said the key challenge
ahead for Singapore was whether young Singaporeans would take the achievements
of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted and be persuaded that Singapore was no
longer vulnerable.

Having articulated what challenge laid ahead, I expected Mr Bilahari
to conclude his speech by mentioning how the Singapore Government would handle
the mindset of the next generation of Singaporeans.

"The key
challenge is internal: that a new generation of Singaporeans will take the
achievements of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted and be persuaded that
Singapore was no longer vulnerable. Some
opposition politicians and their fellow travellers among the intelligensia have
tried to do just that. They either do not understand their own country and
region or place their ambition above the national interest. Fortunately, as the
results of our recent General Election have demonstrated, the majority of my
compatriots do not believe them."[1]

Thus, Mr Bilahari thinks that "some" opposition politicians
(and their sympatheziers) are busy working against the interests of Singapore
and Singaporeans; but fortunately, most Singaporeans are wise to the ruse, as
results of the recent General Election show.

Mr Bilahari's remarks are disturbing.
Inherent in his choice of words is the insidious attitude that “some” opposition
politicians are a pain in the neck, self-seeking and distracting our good
government from protecting our nation and serving Singaporeans.

Mr Bilahari is entitled to his own personal views.

But Mr Bilahari was not speaking at the Cambridge conference in his
personal capacity. He was invited to speak at the conference on the basis of his credentials as Ambassador-at-Large and Policy Advisor in the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Bilahari was speaking at the overseas venue in an official capacity, as a diplomat and civil servant.

The Singapore civil service and the salaries of civil servants are
funded by taxpayers’ money. Singaporeans are entitled to be served by a non-partisan
civil service in which civil servants do not comment on politics or on politicians
or take sides with any political party.

I do not think that a country with a functioning democracy would
have a civil servant, much less a senior diplomat, speak against opposition
politicians at a public forum.

Mr Bilahari is a civil servant and has no business to comment against
opposition politicians in public platforms.
By so doing, Mr Bilahari has provided observers with clear evidence that
our civil service is partisan and partial to the ruling party.

Moreover, Mr Bilahari is a diplomat. I am at a loss as to how Mr
Bilahari can be said to be serving his country and his countrymen by
highlighting the electoral victory of the ruling party.

Singaporeans will be best served if our civil servants spend their
time thinking of ways to improve their efficiency instead of using opposition
politicians as lame excuses for their inadequacies.

Mr Bilahari and his fellow diplomats should focus on dealing with our
foreign foes and on how to fix them[2], instead of thinking about
how to defeat opposition politicians.

PAP dissenters are not “the enemy”.
On the contrary, political dissenters and opposition politicians serve
the nation by holding the PAP Government accountable to Singaporeans. Their continued presence in the political
arena is indispensable to the operation of democracy in Singapore.

That day in Cambridge, I was saddened to see Mr Bilahari throwing punches
against his own countrymen in front of an international audience in his
capacity as Singapore's official representative. I do not understand how our Ministry
of Foreign Affairs could allow its diplomats to express sardonic remarks
against our own Singaporeans at an overseas venue.

A “sardonic diplomat" is a contradiction, an oxymoron. Till now, I am still pondering the enigma of
the oxymoron which is Mr Bilahari.

[1] Extracted from the transcript of Mr Bilahari’s speech posted at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bilahari-kausikan-on-the/2235302.html

[2]
"Instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore,
I have to spend all my time thinking what is the right way to fix them, what's
the right way to buy my own supporters over," Mr Lee Hsien Loong, General
Elections 2006 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WhJKsYb50

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Jabing was convicted under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. Section 300(c) is notorious for providing a controversial definition of murder. To convict an offender for a Section 300(c) murder, it is not necessary for the offender to have an intention to kill the victim. It suffices to prove that the offender intended the bodily harm which caused the victim's death. All of Jabing's judges agreed that Jabing's motive was to rob the victim and, though he intended to physically harm the victim, he never intended the victim's death. But since the Court found that Jabing intended the injuries which caused the victim's death, the court convicted him of section 300(c) murder.

"An eye for an eye" is a form of justice. On that basis, it may be justifiable or acceptable that someone who intentionally commits murder should himself have intentional murder committed on him. But Jabing never intended to kill, yet he has now been sentenced to suffer the penalty of being killed. His punishment is harsher than his own culpability and being so, it does not seem justifiable or acceptable.

Disadvantaged at sentencing

The Court of Appeal conceded that that the sequence of events which took place during the time of the offence, was garbled and not entirely clear. The gaps in the factual matrix were not crucial for the purposes of proving the charge under Section 300(c). So it was not necessary to belabour the trial proceedings to elicit a blow-by-blow account of how the crime was committed, unless such facts were relevant either to prove his guilt or for his defence. Jabing was convicted of the murder charge notwithstanding certain gaps and inconsistencies in the factual matrix.

More importantly, at the time of Jabing's trial, the death penalty was the only sentence - it was mandatory once the offender was found guilty of the murder charge. There was then no other sentencing option.

in 2012, after Jabing's conviction, the Penal Code was amended to give the Court a discretion to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The factors relevant to the Court in deciding whether to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment was not known at the time of Jabing's trial. Had such factors been known to Jabing's lawyers at the time of his trial, I believe that Jabing's lawyers would have made it a point to bring up for the record, certain facts of the case equivocal to his defence, but helpful for his sentencing if found guilty.

Hence, I find that Jabing was at a disadvantage when he came before the sentencing court. Certain gaps in the factual matrix which, had they been explored, canvassed or clarified during his trial, might have helped him to escape the gallows. (Alternatively, such clarification might have served the legal process by enabling the judges to have no doubt he should be hanged, in which case, a unanimous decsion would have ensured.)

Indeed, the dissenting judges were of the view that it would be unsafe to sentence him to death, given the uncertainties caused by the gaps in the factual matrix, and that the offender should be given the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, the majority of the Court of Appeal were prepared to sentence him to death despite the gaps in the factual matrix.

No unanimity within the Court of Appeal

Under the law, the death sentence may be carried out so long as a majority of the judges of the Court so decides. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment from which there is no turning back. The decision to execute must be very certain. But in Jabing's case, the five judges did not agree amongst themselves. The decision was split 3 - 2. Notwithstanding the law, it is difficult to accept that Jabing should hang when two of the five sentencing judges did not think so.

Current Status:

On 19 October 2015, Jabing's clemency petition was rejected by the President, on the advice of the Cabinet. On 5 November 2015, Jabing was granted a temporary stay of execution to allow for the consideration of last-minute legal challenges. The hearing of the criminal motion is fixed for 23 November 2015.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Last Friday, 16 October 2015, I handed my Post-Election Donation Report and Return of Election Expenses to the Elections Department. That was the last requirement for me to fulfill as a candidate for GE 2015.

The finalised Accounts (Revenue & Expenses) are as shown in the attached image files.

After the GE, a reporter asked me in relation to the Campaign: "Was there anything you would have done differently?" I paused to think, then responded decisively: "Not at all. The Campaign ran in exactly the way we wanted and I am very proud of it."

I have no regrets about J4M Campaign. It left me with a bursting bag of great moments and cherished memories which I have the joy of keeping for years to come. And I also have satisfaction of proving the adage: "Together, ordinary people can accomplish the extraordinary." Indeed, the Campaign was a feat which a band of ordinary Singaporeans pulled off despite the unlikely circumstances.

It was a privilege for me to have taken part in GE 2015 as a candidate for Mountbatten SMC. I have much to be grateful for and many, many people to personally thank.

I wish to take this opportunity give my heartfelt and personal thanks to:

the members of J4M Campaign Team who stood and ran with me;

supporters and encouragers who followed my Campaign trail and wished me well;

all those who had so kindly donated to the J4M Campaign fund;

all those who gave their time, ideas, talents, skills and dedication to the Campaign efforts;

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Thank you for inviting me into your homes and giving me the opportunity to represent you. Although defeated at the polls in 2015, our spirits have not been broken. I know with your support, I will be able to improve my showing at the next GE..

Moving ahead, I am seeking your continued support to help defray the J4M campaign cost with a sale of the remaining J4M t-shirts and badges. I am selling both the J4M Tee Shirt & Badge at $28.00 (price is inclusive of delivery to a Singapore address by normal postage).

The T-shirts are available in Small, Medium, Large, X-Large and XX-Large (please indicate your preferred size when ordering). The J4M Badge is sized at 68mm x 23mm. Please see pictures below.

Once again, I would like to thank you for keeping the cause alive and well. I shall see you around soon.

For inquiries, email to jeannette4mountbatten@gmail.com

*** PAYMENT METHODS ***

1. By Bank Transfer

After making the transfer, purchaser requested to email jeannette4mountbatten@gmail.com to provide name, telephone number, mailing address and amount transferred and quantity of shirts and size required.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

And so this lap of my journey for Mountbatten’s nearly complete. Today is the last day of campaigning, and tomorrow is cooling off day. It has been physically and mentally draining but I would do it all over again in a heartbeat.

Mountbatten and I go way back. I grew up in Jalan Sedap and I have happy memories of my childhood spent there. When I got married, our first matrimonial home was at Meyer Road where I bore three out of my four children. As a child, I played at Katong Park. When I had my kids, I brought them there to play too.

Over the course of the campaign, I’ve reconnected with family friends and neighbours from my childhood and early marriage days. Just last week, one of my mum’s friends came up to me while I was giving out pamphlets at Dakota MRT and cheered me on. I’ve lost count of the friendships from GE2011 which I’ve re-kindled and the new ones I’ve made.

From my previous experience in 2011, I knew running a campaign in an SMC against an entrenched incumbent was never going to be easy.
So, I’m proud to say I’ve run my campaign to the fullest of my ability with the help of a dedicated core of volunteers and the backing of the Singapore People’s Party (“SPP”).

This is a summary for why I would like you to give me a chance to serve you in Parliament.

My Mountbatten Manifesto

The centrepiece of my campaign is “My Mountbatten Manifesto”, a detailed document which I sent to residents in Mountbatten, and have made available online. The Straits Times described it as a “masterplan for the area”.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” is crafted with a ear to the ground: it specifically addresses issues of Town Council management and handover (I promise to work with the incumbent to ensure this is done smoothly) as well as assuring residents that I will continue to fight for their community care assistance.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” highlights practical improvements that need to be made around the constituency such as a lift at the overhead bridge outside Kampong Arang, and the importance of securing greater transport connectivity by internal shuttle services in Mountbatten.

However, more than that, “My Mountbatten Manifesto” is an invitation to the residents of Mountbatten to build a home for the heart with me. And, I don’t mean that as just a slogan.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” details realistic and specific plans I have for the partial conservation of Dakota Crescent, and recommends turning it into a mixed commercial-heritage development which will house a community museum and integrated design, creative and heritage space where small business can co-exist with community projects. It also details plans for keeping prices of hawker food at Mountbatten’s hawker centres affordable.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” also sets out the course I will chart in Parliament, and my plans to hold the Government accountable, if elected. This is the primary function of an MP: to speak up for residents in Parliament and to put the constituency on the national stage.

To me, “My Mountbatten Manifesto” is an opportunity for Mountbatten residents to reimagine the community, and a call-to-action to achieve these ideals together.
Many of the proposals are small ones, but grounded ones. They have the potential to better the lives of Mountbatten residents with regard to local and national challenges ahead.

Executing My Plans

I am confident of my ability to to make “My Mountbatten Manifesto” happen.

As a corporate lawyer for 26 years who has built her own legal practice, I have the necessary attention to detail and an eye for compliance to execute my plans.

In estate matters, I have served several terms on the management committee of condominium in Siglap with aroud 1,000 units, and was Chairperson for two terms. I have dealt extensively with issues relating to third party contractors, vendors and suppliers, common property maintenance and management and sinking funds.

I promise to be a responsive MP: I will constantly interact with you to find out how I can improve to serve you better.

If elected, I will work twice as hard to ensure that your trust in me is not squandered. I will take pains to ensure that all Town Council matters are properly handed over within 30 days. My current campaign team, which will also form the nucleus of my transition team, includes a lawyer and an accountant.

Over the last four years, I have sought to retain my presence in Mountbatten within the constraints of my personal resources and time. I hope you will assess me based on the merits of my plans for Mountbatten and my personal attributes and credentials. If you give me a chance to serve you, you will not be disappointed.

Regardless of the outcome on polling day, thank you for the unforgettable experience of being able to run for office for Mountbatten.

As tomorrow is cooling off day, I will not be able to update my internet platforms. To assist you in finding out more about me, please see the following material to get to know me better:

About Me

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer who earned her law degree in the United Kingdom. She also holds a Masters Degree in Corporate & Commercial Law from the London School of Economics & Political Science and was called to the English Bar in 1986.
Jeannette is happily married and a mother of four children.
She challenged the incumbent at Mountbatten SMC in Singapore's 2011 General Elections and garnered 41.38% of the votes cast.